1. It is admitted that the defendant paid Rs. 200 to the plaintiff before the marriage. It is clear from the evidence and from the pleadings that the payment of Rs. 200 for the expense of the marriage, was a term of the contract of marriage. That being so, it follows that the payment was made for the benefit of the plaintiff. In the absence of the payment, she would have had to find the amount in some other way, by borrowing or pledging her jewels or other properties. The cases relied on by the vakil for the respondent viz, Hira v. Haniaji Pema I.L.R.(1912) 37 Bom. 295 , Jaikisondas Gopaldas v. Harkison-das Hullochdnd Das, I.L.R(1876) . 2 Bom. 9, Authikcsavulu Chetty v. Rama-nujam Chetty (1909) I.L.R. 32 Mad. 512 at p. 516, Reverend Gabrielnathaswami v. Valliammai Ammal (1919) 10 L.W. 491 have no bearing on this case. In Hira v. Haniaji Pema I.L.R. (1912)37 Bom. 295 the payment was for the benefit of the third husband. In Jaikisondas Gopaldas v. Harkisandas Hullochandas I.L.R(1876) . 2 Bom. 9 it was for the benefit of the bride. In Authikesavulu Chetty v. Ramanujam Chetty (1932 M. 512 the payment was not of a price but a small customary present. In Reverend Gabrielnathaswami v. Valliamtnai Ammal (1991) 10 L.W. 491 an enquiry was directed into the meaning of the word ' Parisam'. I think the case in Muthu Aiyar v. Chidambara Aiyar (1893) 3 M.L.J. 261 applies to this case and I see no reason to differ from it. As pointed out by Steele, it is the essence of a Brahma form of marriage that the parents should incur the expense of the marriage (page 24) and so far as I am aware, the general usage is in accordance with this statement. No special custom among Mudaliars to the effect that the bridegroom should incur the expense of the marriage has been pleaded. of the other hand, the statement of M. Leon Sorg quoted in Mayne, page 100, shows that the astir a form is common among the Tamil population, meaning probably the Sudras. I therefore find following Muthu Aiyar v. Chidambara Aiyar (1893) 3 M.L.J. 261 that the marriage is in an unapproved form.
2. The result is that the second appeal will be' allowed and the plaintiff will be given a decree for the properties in A schedule and item 1 of B schedule which are admitted to be the properties of the deceased and as to which only the appeal is pressed or for their value Rs. 445-8-0. Plaintiff will have proportionate costs in the first Court and all costs here and in the Lower Appellate Court.
3. I agree.
4. It is not disputed that the sum of Rs. 200/-was paid by the bridegroom to the bride's parents for the expense of the marriage.
5. This being so, it follows from Muthu Aiyar v. Chidambara Aiyar (1893) 3 M.L.J. 261 that the marriage was in the asura form, as it is customary for the bride's parents to defray the cost of marriage in all Brahma form of marriage (Vide Steele on Hindu customs).
6. In my opinion the test is not to see how the money was utilised, as it would be impossible after payment to control the uses to which it might be put, but to see whether the parents were benefited by the payment. It is idle to contend that the parents are not benefited by a payment which relieves them of the burden of an expense to which they would ordinarily be subject.